backtop


Print 48 comment(s) - last by Dreifort.. on Feb 6 at 2:19 PM

MySpace and Facebook have been forced to clean house

MySpace has banned 90,000 sexual predators from its social networking web site, and has turned the names over to two different attorneys general offices, company officials recently announced.

The total number of 90,000 is twice as many as MySpace officials believed it had removed in 2008, with North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal leading the charge.

"Almost 100,000 convicted sex offenders mixing with children on MySpace -- shown by our subpoena -- is absolutely appalling and totally unacceptable," Blumenthal said in a statement issued to the press.  "For every one of them, there may be hundreds of others using false names and ages."

MySpace competitor Facebook, which is the No. 1 social networking web site in the world, have a combined 280 million users -- and the U.S. government wants both sites to do a better job of protecting children and teenagers from sexual predators.

Last year, both companies agreed to work with lawmakers to create security standards to help protect young people from online predators, after parents and politicians said the sites weren't doing enough.

"We've been working productively with Attorney General Blumenthal's office for more than three years on these issues," Facebook chief privacy officer Chris Kelly said in a published statement.  "They recently let us know that they are planning to send an updated subpoena."

Now that MySpace is done kicking 90,000 sexual predators off the internet, Facebook is expected to announce how many people it has removed sometime in the near future.

After the KIDS Act of 2007 was signed into law in 2008, all registered sex offenders must now submit real e-mail and instant messaging account information to the national sex offender registry.  This is done so sites such as MySpace and Facebook are able to better track sexual offenders.

It's unknown how many registered sex offenders use social networking web sites with false identities, so this ultimately is just the tip of the iceberg.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Hm, not to fond of this...
By ninus3d on 2/4/2009 5:13:28 AM , Rating: 4
A "sex offender" has such a huge range but the society has a tendency to "punish" them all equally.
As horrible as molesting a child is, the other end of that range doesnt really warrant a life long "social manhunt" on some of these persons.

How big a threat is this anyway? 80.000 registered convicted criminals and how many cases of problems towards the children they share the same websociety with...?




RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By tastyratz on 2/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 7:49:14 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Adults are different - and its no more dangerous than approaching someone on a dating website or in a bar. It's easy to say these people don't have any rights but that's more to judge on a case by case basis (Why arent sex offenders records tiered?). This is invasive and unnecessary in most instances.

The problem is that sex offenders have a track record of trying to lure people to commit sexual acts against them without their consent. Child or adult, it should not be treated differently. They are not socially acceptable in today's society, and no one in their right mind is going to trust those people again. Good riddance.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By tastyratz on 2/4/2009 8:19:32 AM , Rating: 5
Here's the thing though,
There are people who commit heinous crimes against society. When they aren't sexual in nature they do their time and pay for their mistakes. People who commit any kind of crime are going to be more prime candidates to commit the same crime again. Why is it only sexually based crimes are the ones that essentially come with life on parole?

When people hear sex offenders they think someone who went hog wild (in a literal sense) on a school bus.

There are people who roam the streets after killing someone in cold blood, and there are people who got drunk and grabbed some girls ass at a frat party... Yet person 2 essentially has their life ruined because they registered as a sex offender.

I am in support of segregation as well as removing certain liberties for people who deserve it, but until the system is tiered I don't think its fair to just lump everyone together.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By mdogs444 on 2/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By omnicronx on 2/4/2009 8:38:22 AM , Rating: 2
I also think he is missing the point here.. Its unfortunate, but social networking sites like myspace have become a breeding ground for sexual predators. If former murderers started using myspace to stalk their prey, then you would be seeing them banned too.. Its not like there is a double standard here.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By tastyratz on 2/4/2009 9:02:01 AM , Rating: 5
No,
Social networking sites are just the latest medium. Before they were here sexual predators had to do it the "old fashioned way" by going to bars and concerts to meet people.
Children are easily manipulated and approached digitally but this isn't only about people with a history of child based offenses.

For adults its even safer because it allows you to almost screen out people before you even get involved.

I am not disagreeeing that we should have certain degrees of protection from certain individuals - I simply demand a greater granularity from the legal system for fairness to all.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By Dreifort on 2/6/2009 2:19:37 PM , Rating: 2
If anyone doesn't know this, the trend for "filtering" MySpace users was only enacted once Fox Corp purchased MySpace.

One of the new ownerships first acts was to filter and ban hate groups. The first group closed/cancled was a pro-gay group (damn it!, used that stupid word again...here comes the hate crime police). They were promoting anti-gay hate speech, so the group account was closed. A lawsuit followed shortly afterward.

And yes, the crackdown on inappropriate material is across the board, not limited to certain groups or individuals.

http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_251.html


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By tastyratz on 2/4/2009 8:48:53 AM , Rating: 4
On that same plane why stop there? Why not give every crime the death penalty or life in prison?
Why not ban murderers from myspace in case they go there to kill again? What about theives in case they want to find someone with something to steal? drunk and disorderlies? perjurers? Where is the line drawn?

People deserve justice - and I am probably thinking on a similar level to you when I say an "eye for an eye" system is closer to justice than what we have now... but every crime is unique and should be treated as such. When you start infringing on the civil liberties of others in such a broad manner it's not likely to stop there. Without any form of restrictions and discrimination these kinds of things can be playing with fire for EVERYONE'S liberties.
These are not punishments deemed by a jury of someones peers, they are government restrictions. Call me Orwellian if you will but I take a cautious side first.


By psychobriggsy on 2/4/2009 10:00:26 AM , Rating: 5
Apparently sex offenders have the lowest rates of recidivism compared to other crimes.

Basically, the people that do get tagged for life, are those most likely to never commit the same offence again. The thief and the drunk driver are far more likely to recommit yet they aren't on a register.

The real problem is that people are tagged as sex offenders for taking a whizz in public and getting caught, or for having sex with their 1 year younger girlfriend when they're 17, and so on.

When the labelling is abused so much the really dangerous people remaining are just 1 in 100,000, not 1 in 10,000, and thus far harder to keep tags on.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By asuffield on 2/4/2009 8:37:12 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The problem is that sex offenders have a track record of trying to lure people to commit sexual acts against them without their consent.


Sigh. No.

The problem is that sex offenders have a track record of public urination.

Go look up the definition in the law (paying particular attention to "tier 0" and "tier 1"). It does not say what you think it says. If it did say what you think it says, I'd find it far less objectionable. People who really do have a track record like that probably do need special treatment. Unfortunately, this is not what they are doing.

In the US population as a whole, about one in a hundred "registered sex offenders" are classified as "high risk". Even fewer have any interest in children.

How many of the people targeted on myspace are classified as "high risk"?


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 8:45:13 AM , Rating: 3
High risk or not, would you let your children play in the front yard unsupervised if a sex offender who wasn't classified as "high risk" lived next door...or down the street...or across the street? No.

And public urination is not a sexual offense, its public indecency...my roommate got cited for it in college. A typical sexual offense is one where you put your hands on someone, against their will, in a sexual way....or if they are under lawful age, regardless of their will.

Neither is socially acceptable.

Besides, would you want your 5 year old little girl walking down the sidewalk and having a guy publicly urinating in front of her, showing himself? Only in San Francisco would that be deemed socially acceptable by today's standards.

What disgusting though, is not only do you advocate on behalf of these people - perhaps you are one - but that you make excuses for them when they know its wrong.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By SavagePotato on 2/4/2009 8:54:50 AM , Rating: 4
Don't forget that recently there have been quite a few cases brought to the media about teenagers tried and convicted of sex offenses for doing what teenagers do.

There was a teenage girl convicted of distribution of child pornography for taking nude photos of herself and sending it to her boyfriend via phone, when it got out to a whole bunch of students. That is one of the less absurd ones I might add.

The United States has been on a rant of total ridiculousness lately in classifying people as sex offenders.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By mdogs444 on 2/4/09, Rating: -1
By SavagePotato on 2/4/2009 12:10:58 PM , Rating: 5
It is ridiculous to brand a 14 year old girl as a sex offender and distributor of child pornography for sending her teenage boyfriend a nude photo of herself. Yes lets brand a child as a potential child predator for the rest of her life with a sex offender title because of something like that.

But what else would you expect from the good old puritanical sexually repressed United States. To make sense? no not at all.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By tastyratz on 2/4/2009 8:56:50 AM , Rating: 3
Perhaps public urination on others is a better example? In that case they are infringing on a perfectly good pair of shoes.

Should we glue a neon sign above their head equivocal to "rapist"
Maybe at 45 they are unfit to work in a school or live in a certain neighborhood? Fast forward some more...What about when hes older and not allowed in certain retirement communities? Is that justice?

These things don't have expiration policies.

And what delusion of innocence are you operating under?

Call it Rocks in a glass house but did you never make any mistakes or choices in your youth (not just under 18) which may be frowned upon as an adult? Do you think every choice no matter what level should haunt someone for life? You would need to place a lot of faith in the accuracy of the legal system if you do.

If we should lump these people together why not lump everyone else who has seen the justice system? How about we get forehead tattoos that just say "bad man"?


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By mdogs444 on 2/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By tastyratz on 2/4/2009 9:26:12 AM , Rating: 2
Your references are to the worst end when you sum up the whole.

I agree with you that someone in their 60s or 70s who are convicted of child molestation/rape should be labeled as such.

quote:
quote:
Should we glue a neon sign above their head equivocal to "rapist"
Fine by me.

This one just makes me happy your not a DA. The argument was a neon sign that says rapist above the head of someone who urinated on someones shoes raising a point that they are indeed not rapists.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 9:29:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The argument was a neon sign that says rapist above the head of someone who urinated on someones shoes raising a point that they are indeed not rapists.

I didn't read the question as such, but if that's actually how you intended then I would say of course not. I've clearly stated in my above posts that public urination is not a sex crime, but rather public indecency. And as opposed to be labeled a "rapist", they should be charged with something similar to assault.


By psychobriggsy on 2/4/2009 10:25:20 AM , Rating: 2
What? For taking a piss behind a bush when they were 16? Really? Are you a member of the Taliban? You are a total and utter idiot.

Classify actual sex offenders as sex offenders, and you can track them to help them not re-offend.

Classify too many people, and the dangerous ones get lost in the masses.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By acase on 2/4/2009 10:49:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes. I don't want a former sexual offender working in school that my kids attend, nor do I want them living in my neighborhood where my children play.


I would think someone as overly-paranoid as you would have maybe spent some time talking to your children about what to do in certain situations, or at least keep an eye on them when they are playing in your front yard. Maybe you are just too busy making foil hats and posting rediculous claims online. Anyways, if there was a "sexual predator" living in your neighborhood he would be required by law to let you now about it and you could tell your little (overprotected and not ready for any challenges in their life) children to stay away from him.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 11:03:37 AM , Rating: 1
I'm overly paranoid because I don't trust someone who has already committed sexual acts against children?

I bet you were one of those sickos that got caught on dateline, and are now trying to gain social acceptance.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By tastyratz on 2/4/2009 1:17:20 PM , Rating: 2
There you go generalizing an overly broad group with those of the extreme end to validate your point
.
Your overly paranoid because you think everyone tagged a sexual offender is a child molester.

Its like dealing with someones super religious mom who thinks all of her sons friends are "devil worshipers" because they listen to that "rock and roll noise"

That exact arrogant mentality is precisely whats destroying the american legal system right now law by law.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 1:37:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
There you go generalizing an overly broad group with those of the extreme end to validate your point . Your overly paranoid because you think everyone tagged a sexual offender is a child molester.

No, i believe than anyone who has committed a sexual crime, regardless of how bad or the age of the person violated, has the potential to not only do it again, but to also do something even worse.
quote:
Its like dealing with someones super religious mom who thinks all of her sons friends are "devil worshipers" because they listen to that "rock and roll noise"

No its not, in that case you cited you are trying to label someone because you dont agree with their opinions or freedoms. In the case of sexual offenders, the case is clear. They have violated the law, and are already found guilty. Your attempt to push a nonsensical comparison is laughable at best.
quote:
That exact arrogant mentality is precisely whats destroying the american legal system right now law by law.

Im arrogant because I dont trust sexual offenders, and dont find them socially acceptable? Perhaps its not my American arrogance that is the problem. Perhaps the real problem is you social liberal types who try to find social acceptance for people in which the masses dont want anywhere near them.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By tastyratz on 2/4/2009 2:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, i believe than anyone who has committed a sexual crime, regardless of how bad or the age of the person violated, has the potential to not only do it again, but to also do something even worse.


Case studies have proven that sexual crimes against minors when performed by adults are indeed not truly sexual in nature. This is evident by the less than stellar success rate of neutering child offenders.

An adult who commits a sexual act on a child probably has a subconscious mental issue. An adult who commits a sexual act on another adult is usually very horny and cant control their inhibitions. Its almost a completely different class of criminal.

Comparing the 2 is like comparing a music pirater to someone who holds up a record store with a gun. Both involve music theft but its hardly a case of escalation or similar mentalities.

Your not arrogant because you detest sexual crimes, your arrogant because you refuse to acknowledge the many different tiers of offenses with granularity.

Scenario: Give the case file to a group of peers for 2 different cases. Case 1 is someone convicted of being a repeat child molester and rapist in a horrific nature. Case 2. 18 year old in college who had too much to drink at a frat party and indecently grabbed a passing girl.

I would bet my life savings you would get 2 starkly different results when giving those people a questioneer on their thoughts.

Why is there a definition for 3rd degree murder, and not 3rd degree sexual offenses?

I am not advocating liberty for those who would classify as a third degree offender, I am advocating recognition of severity for the people who don't deserve a lifelong penal system hazing by generic labeling.

I suppose you could just say I disagree with your view on the similarities between the 2.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 2:16:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Case studies have proven that sexual crimes against minors when performed by adults are indeed not truly sexual in nature.

Whether they are sexual in nature is besides the point. The bottom line is they violated a minor in a way that is not socially acceptable, and that person is no longer trustworth (as far as I am concerned) with being around any children, especially ones who cannot protect themselves against him/her.
quote:
An adult who commits a sexual act on a child probably has a subconscious mental issue.

Again, I dont care WHY it happened. I'm all for making laws and punishments to assure that it doesn't happen again.
quote:
An adult who commits a sexual act on another adult is usually very horny and cant control their inhibitions.

No, it means that the particular person has violated the liberties and freedoms of someone else against their will, plain and simple.
quote:
I am advocating recognition of severity for the people who don't deserve a lifelong penal system hazing by generic labeling.

I never said I was against different severity levels, as far as labeling is concerned. But forgive me if I choose to act like it didnt happen and accept them as my next door neighbor who I trust around my children.
quote:
I would bet my life savings you would get 2 starkly different results when giving those people a questioneer on their thoughts.

I'm sure you would. I won't argue that. But whether he was drunk or not is not a valid excuse for violating someone else. Granted a swift pat on the cheek is not the same as forcing himself upon her against her will, the fact is that he violated her in a way that he has no right doing, and if she feels threatened or insecure now because of him, I don't see anything wrong with making him live up to what he did.

In conclusion, I said I'm all for different severity levels, but I refuse to accept that removing the tag and acting like it didn't happen, and now making him socially acceptable because he's "sorry". Oops, should have thought of that before he did it.


By psychobriggsy on 2/4/2009 10:21:42 AM , Rating: 2
Taking a piss is a natural bodily function.

Yet people who do this, even by taking reasonable action to stay out of view (going behind bushes, etc) get caught, and labelled as sex offenders. As you say, it's not a sexual offense.

The whole situation is farcical.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By BZDTemp on 2/4/2009 10:19:32 AM , Rating: 2
How about murderers? Or thief's?

Would you say a murder does not have a history of doing stuff to people without their consent? I don't see them being banned from MySpace. And what about those that steal - isn't there and increased risk that meeting a thief will mean you might lose you stuff?

I strongly feel that punish people beyond their conviction is wrong. Either you're locked up because you are a risk to other people or you should be as free as everyone else. By making sites like MySpace punish criminals beyond what jail time they did just seems wrong. What is next - a rule saying criminals must stay indoor after dark!?

Society needs to decide if people should be in jail or be free. This something in between is just wrong.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By Crysalis99 on 2/4/2009 10:03:12 AM , Rating: 2
I had a fallout with a rather good friend who wouldnt leave her boyfriend. The boyfriend was convicted for molesting his four year old sister. For the life of me, I couldnt figure out why she still wanted to be with that piece of scum.

Anyways, the guy has a myspace, hasnt been used in awhile of course, but it wouldnt surpise me if it was one of the ones taken down or going to be. But you know what, a sex offender is a sex offender. Whether be it adult or child. You are still taking advantage of someone against thier own will. Would you not want extreme justice if someone took advantage of you like that?


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By psychobriggsy on 2/4/2009 10:40:34 AM , Rating: 2
Convicted, tried, punished, did his time (both punishment and rehabilitation) presumably. Hopefully a decent amount of time for the crime of course.

I don't know why anyone would go out with him afterwards once they found out, but that is her choice, and women and logic rarely meet. Hell, at least he said what he did!

In the eyes of the law, a sex offender is someone labelled "sex offender", whether or not they committed what a reasonable person would call a sex offence to get that label. Because these labelling schemes were a knee-jerk reaction they weren't clearly thought out in the first place and this is why you see stories all the time about people doing perfectly normal things as teenagers and getting slammed hard for life for doing it.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By Crysalis99 on 2/4/2009 12:09:29 PM , Rating: 2
Heh, it is a minimum of one year with good behavior and a max of 8. I really couldnt tell you whats happening as far as that goes. Personally, and I know I have been flamed for saying such things before, but this guy should be executed. He should be tortured with x number hours of butt rape, castration and then executed for what he has done.

He never admitted it though. He claimed he couldnt remember doing it or anything but apparently the evidence was there to find him guilty.

Yeah, I spent so much time trying to force her away from this guy, let alone being in jail for that he is just a manipulative, controlling bastard. She is so wrapped around his finger it is'nt even funny. Women, us men will never understand thier version of 'logic'.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By Slappi on 2/4/2009 12:10:02 PM , Rating: 1
You must of been number 34,287


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By meepstone on 2/4/2009 10:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
While the term sex offender is broad in terms of there specific crimes, i'd rather be safe than sorry. especially every parent who has a kid using myspace and facebook.


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki